Eight Husker Football Players Sue the Big Ten

[WyoHusker56]

1 hour ago, Huskers93-97 said:

If that is their angle. I assume they would push to have a re-vote that would require 9 votes to suspend the season since they are contesting it was not done correctly the first time? In lieu of the current situation where we need 9 votes to resume?

 

The speculation I have seen is that the first vote was not a proper Rules of Roberts vote (I have no idea what that means) and they would technically need to either vote to have a season or suspend it. However, they don't have the votes to go either way and both sides are trying to get schools on their side and then they'll "revote" which will actually just be a real first vote. So, yes, they'd ether need to vote to actually suspend it or to continue with a new schedule of which has to be approved anyhow.

[Huskers93-97]

2 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

The speculation I have seen is that the first vote was not a proper Rules of Roberts vote (I have no idea what that means) and they would technically need to either vote to have a season or suspend it. However, they don't have the votes to go either way and both sides are trying to get schools on their side and then they'll "revote" which will actually just be a real first vote. So, yes, they'd ether need to vote to actually suspend it or to continue with a new schedule of which has to be approved anyhow.

I wish they would just realize some of these places due to political reasons are going to dig their heels in and are not going to budge. So just let the schools play that want to play and let the schools that want to opt out opt out. It sounds like 8 want to play and 6 want to sit out. But if you sit out- you will not receive your portions of the $$$ the big10 earns. It would be split between the 8 participating schools.

[WyoHusker56]

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I wish they would just realize some of these places due to political reasons are going to dig their heels in and are not going to budge. So just let the schools play that want to play and let the schools that want to opt out opt out. It sounds like 8 want to play and 6 want to sit out. But if you sit out- you will not receive your portions of the $$$ the big10 earns. It would be split between the 8 participating schools.

 

Yes, the common sense approach. Seems like that gets thrown out from the get go in these situations though.

[84HuskerLaw]

3 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

The speculation I have seen is that the first vote was not a proper Rules of Roberts vote (I have no idea what that means) and they would technically need to either vote to have a season or suspend it. However, they don't have the votes to go either way and both sides are trying to get schools on their side and then they'll "revote" which will actually just be a real first vote. So, yes, they'd ether need to vote to actually suspend it or to continue with a new schedule of which has to be approved anyhow.

Perhaps.  However, if the vote (if there was a vote(s) actually taken was not correctly done, then the Big Ten has not cancelled fall sports at all, legally.  At that point, the “NOs” need 9 votes to pass a corrected cancellation.  The schools that want to play - assuming atleast 6 exist - are free to proceed with games as they can get them booked.  Whether or not the games are Big Ten sanctioned.  So the “YES” teams need to follow the schedule actually adopted by the conference at a lawful meeting.  Teams that fail to show become forfeits, with whatever that entails.  The teams with best records play for the Big Ten championship.  

[Huskers93-97]

22 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Perhaps.  However, if the vote (if there was a vote(s) actually taken was not correctly done, then the Big Ten has not cancelled fall sports at all, legally.  At that point, the “NOs” need 9 votes to pass a corrected cancellation.  The schools that want to play - assuming atleast 6 exist - are free to proceed with games as they can get them booked.  Whether or not the games are Big Ten sanctioned.  So the “YES” teams need to follow the schedule actually adopted by the conference at a lawful meeting.  Teams that fail to show become forfeits, with whatever that entails.  The teams with best records play for the Big Ten championship.  

So your saying Nebraska should have a winning season mostly due to forfeits? 

[knapplc]

31 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Perhaps.  However, if the vote (if there was a vote(s) actually taken was not correctly done, then the Big Ten has not cancelled fall sports at all, legally.  At that point, the “NOs” need 9 votes to pass a corrected cancellation.  The schools that want to play - assuming atleast 6 exist - are free to proceed with games as they can get them booked.  Whether or not the games are Big Ten sanctioned.  So the “YES” teams need to follow the schedule actually adopted by the conference at a lawful meeting.  Teams that fail to show become forfeits, with whatever that entails.  The teams with best records play for the Big Ten championship.  

 

What does that mean, "legally?" 

 

There are no laws that govern whether colleges play sports. A school can cancel its athletic program with zero legal repercussions. It can cancel a scheduled game, it can forfeit, it can kick players or coaches off the team. You can't legally force them to allow players to play.

 

You can, legally, force public schools into an amount of disclosure about the processes surrounding these decisions, but that's about it.

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

What does that mean, "legally?" 

 

There are no laws that govern whether colleges play sports. A school can cancel its athletic program with zero legal repercussions. It can cancel a scheduled game, it can forfeit, it can kick players or coaches off the team. You can't legally force them to allow players to play.

 

You can, legally, force public schools into an amount of disclosure about the processes surrounding these decisions, but that's about it.

If the B1G didn't follow their own bylaws, then I think that opens them up to civil cases.

[84HuskerLaw]

19 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

So your saying Nebraska should have a winning season mostly due to forfeits? 

Depends on how many games they can get with real opponents.  3 non-cons plus the conference games.

 

Play:

 

Wiscy, Iowa, Minn, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, 

 

Forfeits:

 

Ill, NW, Mich St, 

 

Possible Forfeit or play:

 

Rutgers

 

Alternate opponent:

 

Indiana

 

3 non-cons originally scheduled unless that cancellation was legally done and cannot be revived. 

plus any other non-cons to be found.   ??? if possible under legit Big Ten restrictions, if any.  

 

Winning record?   who knows but it is possible we could have 7 or 8 league games and 2 to 4 non-cons.  Maybe get as many as 7 in Lincoln!!!  

Not a bad schedule really!   

 

[84HuskerLaw]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If the B1G didn't follow their own bylaws, then I think that opens them up to civil cases.

 

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

What does that mean, "legally?" 

 

There are no laws that govern whether colleges play sports. A school can cancel its athletic program with zero legal repercussions. It can cancel a scheduled game, it can forfeit, it can kick players or coaches off the team. You can't legally force them to allow players to play.

 

You can, legally, force public schools into an amount of disclosure about the processes surrounding these decisions, but that's about it.

Legally means what it says.  The Big Ten must follow lawful steps to conduct its business.  The law sets out how corporations do things.  If they follow the rules, their decisions are enforceable. If not, then the actions are null and void.  Breach of contracts can get Big Ten sued for non-performance just like any individual or company or state or other entity.  

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

 

Legally means what it says.  The Big Ten must follow lawful steps to conduct its business.  The law sets out how corporations do things.  If they follow the rules, their decisions are enforceable. If not, then the actions are null and void.  Breach of contracts can get Big Ten sued for non-performance just like any individual or company or state or other entity.  

 

Bylaws aren't laws, they're internal rules & regs. What law are you talking about?

[84HuskerLaw]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Bylaws aren't laws, they're internal rules & regs. What law are you talking about?

By laws are publicly declared operating procedures that legally must be adhered to by the organization for the protection of the orgsnizations’ shareholders, Board members, employees, partners, third party contractors, and the general public.  The set out in basic detail how the organization must conduct its affairs.  No the are not “laws” like statutes passed by governments, but they are just as binding as a public law in that sense.  Third parties and individual members or those who deal with a corporation are entitled to rely on the articles and by laws and Board actions and officers with authority to act for the entity. 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

By laws are publicly declared operating procedures that legally must be adhered to by the organization for the protection of the orgsnizations’ shareholders, Board members, employees, partners, third party contractors, and the general public.  The set out in basic detail how the organization must conduct its affairs.  No the are not “laws” like statutes passed by governments, but they are just as binding as a public law in that sense.  Third parties and individual members or those who deal with a corporation are entitled to rely on the articles and by laws and Board actions and officers with authority to act for the entity. 

 

This is true in corporate law, but we're talking about public (and one private) colleges. The exposure they have is more internal, less than external, because they don't have shareholders. And that still doesn't get around the fact that, bylaws or no bylaws, they have the right to cancel everything from individual games to entire athletic departments without legal repercussion.

 

Trev Alberts cut entire programs from UNO, much to the outrage of the players, fans and coaches of those teams. He violated no law doing it, and suffered no legal repercussions.

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

By laws are publicly declared operating procedures that legally must be adhered to by the organization for the protection of the orgsnizations’ shareholders, Board members, employees, partners, third party contractors, and the general public.  The set out in basic detail how the organization must conduct its affairs.  No the are not “laws” like statutes passed by governments, but they are just as binding as a public law in that sense.  Third parties and individual members or those who deal with a corporation are entitled to rely on the articles and by laws and Board actions and officers with authority to act for the entity. 

B1G has not publicly declared their bylaws AFAIK.

[84HuskerLaw]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is true in corporate law, but we're talking about public (and one private) colleges. The exposure they have is more internal, less than external, because they don't have shareholders. And that still doesn't get around the fact that, bylaws or no bylaws, they have the right to cancel everything from individual games to entire athletic departments without legal repercussion.

 

Trev Alberts cut entire programs from UNO, much to the outrage of the players, fans and coaches of those teams. He violated no law doing it, and suffered no legal repercussions.

As long as he did it within his lawful authority, fine.  The Big Ten is a separate legal entity whose members are universities.  UNO is a part on the Nebraska system.  UNO may have been a member of a conference too.  UNO either authorized and empowered Trev to act or voted by Regents or other process to approve Trev’s actions. I suspect UNO fulfilled its contracts per their terms before cancelling or paid damages as owed for default.  

The regents most likely OKed the decisions Trev may have reported. If he acted without authority (doubtful), his actions could be challenged as well.  I have no reason to question such.  

[84HuskerLaw]

22 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

B1G has not publicly declared their bylaws AFAIK.

Yes they have.  I reviewed a 2017 version by simple google check.  By laws are not secret and anyone dealing with a corporation, association, partnership etc has right examine them and require verification of actions in accordance with governing documents and Board resolutions etc. Typically such docs are attached to agreements etc. as a matter of course.